Unreasoning and blind hatred come in many forms. History has shown century after century that prejudice, discrimination, ethnocentrism, and cultural relativism are nothing new. This has changed little with the dawn of a new millennium. Many reasons exist for repulsion, revulsion, and being repelled by the other. That none of the excuses given stand up to examination means very little to too many. A belief in the inferiority of those who are not of a certain group has been responsible for much of the world's miseries for thousands of years.

Just like a building, a belief is made up of many parts. A structure does not stand upon only one column. Beliefs are not built inside a vacuum. Children are not born with a fully developed and rigid set of certainties, convictions, and conclusions. They grow up observing the world around them. They learn the differences between black and white, us and them, who to love and who to hate.

Prejudice is based upon ignorance and sloth. A prejudiced person or group of people dislikes and mistrusts those who they do not understand and are unwilling to learn about. Prejudice assumes that the “other“ is inferior in some fundamental way. Ignorance and allowing others to think for a group has proven disastrous time and time again. Millions willingly followed first Vladimir Lenin and then Joseph Stalin down the path which led to gulags and a scale of murder on the level of Nazi Germany. Both Hitler and Stalin managed to create a cult of personality which gave them free rein to pursue goals which made the free world shudder. The people were proud to follow such strong leaders. Pride can lead to prejudice which can then lead to discrimination. The Soviet and the Nazi leaders each had an inherent belief in their own superiority. This gave them the “right” to discriminate against anyone who did not fit within the fixed and inflexible limited parameters. The Oxford Dictionary (2012) defines discrimination as “the ability to judge what is of high quality”. The same dictionary also states that discrimination is “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people”. This might have worked very well for the Nazis and Soviets if those who were to be discriminated against were a set and unchanging list. But someone could fall out of favor with the regime without having done anything different than previously. According to Cavendish (2003), Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria (head of the NKVD) found out the hard way when he was executed in December 1953. Beria had for years been responsible under Stalin for putting to death those who were to be treated to the ultimate form of discrimination. It is difficult to believe that Stalin was a great judge of quality.

A person, group, or nation that is ethnocentric judges other people and cultures based only upon an understanding of one’s own culture. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were nation-sized laboratories designed to define and create ethnocentrism. However, the two countries went about the process along a path which diverged at a critical juncture. The Communists attempted to create a nation where distinctions between ethnic groups and religions blurred into one homogenous “new man.” According to McFarland (1992), “Soviet ethnocentrism […] correlated very strongly with authoritarianism, indicating that the authoritarian personality was an important source of ethnocentrism and prejudice in the Soviet Union as it is in the West“ (p. 1005).

The Nazi system was also solidly based upon an authoritarian model. The primary difference is that the regime insisted upon a society not of absorption but of expulsion, elimination, and eradication. The National Socialists wanted to create a strong Heimatland by doing away with “weak” elements and corrupting influences. The targets for extermination included Jews, Roma, Communists, the disabled, and the homosexual. Wiping out the supposed diseased parts would result in a much stronger body. The Nazis built strength through amputation while the Soviets did the same through incorporation.

Ethnocentrism can have a positive impact in certain limited areas. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, Vilna Ghetto, and elsewhere were besieged, harassed, and repressed by the Nazis and their collaborators. Jews managed to gain strength through looking inward. They studied Talmud and Torah to help better understand themselves and their repressors. The Nazis did not offer much choice in this case when it came to turning to ethnocentrism. The world around the Jews had gone mad. The Jewish people had to believe that they were superior to those around them.

Cultural relativism is the antithesis of prejudice, discrimination, and ethnocentrism. The core of cultural relativism is that all belief systems have equal validity. One culture cannot be held up as better or worse. This theory is an antonym to that of ethnocentrism. An argument can be made that certain elements of various cultures are repulsive and against human nature. At the same time, this is done through the prism of someone’s own culture. Little chance seems to exist to understand another culture if that culture has never been experienced. Cultural relativism is a byword in Germany today. The nation has learned the lesson of looking for the value in everyone.

Acting under the assumption that all cultures are equal can lead to serious consequences. An earlier example of the value of ethnocentrism was given involving Jews during the Holocaust. Cultural relativism, which can be positive, gave false hope to many Jews before and in the midst of war. A great number chose to stay in place despite the clear warning signs issuing from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere. Too many Jews wanted to believe that the vast majority of gentiles valued all religions and ethnic groups equally. The result was that an awakening took place too late for most. Lewis Carroll (2008) might have put it best in Alice in Wonderland with the following statement: “’If everybody minded their own business,’ the Duchess said in a hoarse growl, 'the world would go round a deal faster than it does.’” Prejudice and persecution should go the way of the Dodo.

 

 

References

Barkan, S.E. (2011). Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World, Comprehensive
        Edition. Online. Flatworld Knowledge.

Carroll, L. (2008). Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org.

Cavendish, R. (2003, December). Lavrenti Beria executed. History Today, 53(12), 54. Retrieved

        from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.

Keir, G. (Ed.). (2012). Oxford Dictionaries Online. Retrieved from

         http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.

McFarland, S.G. & Ageyev, V.S. & Abalakina-Paap, M.A. (1992, December). Authoritarianism  

        in the former Soviet Union. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 1004-

       1010. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.

Doctor Jean Kilbourne has for decades used the science of macrosociology to help focus attention on how women are portrayed in advertising. Her research, started in the late 1960s, has shown a link between the use of the female form in advertisements and how it impacts both genders. Images such as those of Brooke Shields in Calvin Klein ads portray females as sexual objects. This objectification can cause men to dehumanize women which can lead to everything from insults to assaults to rapes. Women can see themselves as not good enough based upon unrealistic images seen in magazines, newspapers, billboards, and the Internet. This can lead to self-hatred, bulimia, anorexia, and even suicide. According to Doctor Kilbourne, the way women are pictured in the media has a very real societal effect.

Sociology can look at things on a large or small scale. The rate of illiteracy in American society is something which can be studied using either macrosociology or microsociology. A macrosociologist such as Dr. Kilbourne would look at why literacy rates are lower in some communities and higher in others. A microsociologist would instead find out why certain individuals in that community are illiterate. Macrosociology holds up a mirror to society at large while microsociology examines life up close and personal.

Conflict theory is used as a tool of macrosociology. This theory highlights the imbalances that take place in social groups. Karl Marx is considered the creator of conflict theory. He used conflict theory to showcase the injustices that develop when the rich have so much power over the poor. Jean Kilbourne used conflict theory to point out how visual images of women in advertising can lead to inequality among the sexes. Women and even girls are often shown as hypersexual, vulnerable, unsure, and in need of men to lead and control them.

The premise of Kilbourne’s research was that the way women are shown in advertising has a negative impact on how women are perceived by men and by themselves. Her theory is that the images of women submissive and/or sexualized can lead to various negative consequences. Doctor Kilbourne tested her theory using the scientific method. She made use of various research methods to help determine the validity of the theory. One research method she used was to examine existing data. The images she collected from magazines and other sources already existed. She gathered them over a period of years in a longitudinal study. She also studied statistics regarding incidences of battering, rape, and other crimes against women. The examination of the collection of images coupled with statistical analysis led her to see a real correlation between the media portrayal of women and violence.

Doctor Kilbourne also made use of intensive interviewing. Her friends would come over and see her collection of images which she had gathered over time. The friends would ask her what the images meant. She would reverse this by asking them what they believe the images represent. The conclusions reached during these interviews supported her theory that the photos and graphics can lead to low self-esteem, depression, and various health issues.

A paucity of images exists in advertising which display males in a sexualized fashion. The numbers have increased but according to Dr. Kilbourne, this has not led to any negative consequences for men. Doctor Kilbourne started her research in the 1960s. For decades, she has pointed out the hurtful consequences of the way in which females are pictured in the world of advertising. Very little has changed in that time. This can be seen in advertisements from a wide variety of companies: Deutsch Magazine, JBS Men’s Underwear, New York Health & Racquet Club, Dolce & Gabbana, Tom Ford for Men, and many others. The products being promoted include health clubs, underwear for men, and cologne. It does not seem to matter what the product is. All that seems important to advertisers and their clients is to sell the goods however necessary. The way to sell such items back in the 1960s was to couple them with sex. Advertisers today continue to sell sex without regard for the repercussions to half the world’s population.

 

References

Barkan, S.E. (2011). Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World, Comprehensive
        Edition. Online. Flatworld Knowledge.

Media Education Foundation (Creator). ElectronicaJohnnyK (Poster). (2012, September 7). Kill
       ing us Softly 3 [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wy6GTc5Vs

Native Americans were transformed into the noble “Red Man” or the ignoble “Redskin” by arriving Europeans after the start of immigration to the shores of North America (Shoemaker, 1997, p. 643). This was done even though the Europeans most often described the Native Americans as tawny or brown in color. According to Shoemaker, the use of red as a descriptor has two possible origins; one being that Native Americans self-identified as red to distinguish a difference between themselves, the arriving whites and their “black” slaves. The other possible origin is that some Native Americans may have actually used the word red to describe their tribe, or may have been so described by other tribes. The tribes were usually only referred to as red people by diplomats (Shoemaker, 1997, p. 629).

The use of the word red as opposed to black or white was originally just an easy reference point to identify Native Americans; just as the term Negroes was used to identify African slaves. The various tribes did not generally have a problem with being identified as red. They would refer to the Europeans as whites, and the slaves as blacks. Much of the labeling that took place was initiated by the Native Americans. As tensions developed over the years, the whites were almost always referred to as whites but often with derogatory terms added on. Americans were considered ugly or as nothing compared to the “red” man.

The use of “Red Man” or “Redskin” as an identifier began to take on a negative connotation as more and more Europeans made the move to what would later become the United States of America. As the lands on the Eastern Seaboard began to fill up and as tales of riches to be found further west circulated, there was a powerful incentive to paint the Native Americans as something less than a benign presence. The people formerly known as Europeans were transformed by the end of the Revolutionary War into Americans. Previously, the divisions between the British and the colonials had not left much time for turning attention to the lands then possessed by the original occupants.

The final defeat of the British in 1783 saw the newly independent Americans restless and filled with a sense of manifest destiny. A ragtag band of volunteers made up of raw recruits had managed to defeat the world’s leading power of its day. The original 13 colonies were now transformed into the 13 states. However, one thing had most definitely not changed. The elite maintained firm control over land, wealth, and power. The elected had gone from British merchants to American gentlemen farmers.

Men who had just been mustered out of the army saw little chance for their lot to improve if they remained where they were. All that most of them had to look forward to was a return to the jobs they had held before the war. Perhaps they would work for “Americans” now instead of the British, but still they would work for someone else’s benefit. The one alternative seemed to be “Go west, young man”, which is something many of them did well before the famous quote by Horace Greeley.

The start of the 1700s had seen the Native Americans as a mainly benevolent group who were willing to share their bounty and knowledge with the newcomers. The end of the century saw the start of the transformation which turned this same group into a band of savages. Popular literature had to be able to justify the pillage and plunder of lands which clearly belonged to groups that had been there for centuries. American pioneers carved out a vast territory upon the grounds which previously had belonged to their neighbors to the west. The destruction of an ancient way of life, accompanied by diseases for which the Native Americans had no immunity     from was the beginning of the end. The start of American independence was the beginning of the end of freedom for Native Americans.

 
References

Berkin, C. (2011). Making America: A History. Independence, Kentucky. Wadsworth Cengage

           Learning.

Shoemaker, N. (1997, June). How Indians Got to Be Red. American Historical Review, 102(3),

           624-644. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com